OldYgg

You know if I could spend some time with Socrates, a good Mexican restaurant and a good amount of beer we'd both be flying on a layer of gas!

Socrates can fly and so can I!

Old Ygg

Magdlyn

Of course, a few centuries before Socrates, Pythagoras, his predecessor, was claimed to be able to talk to animals, to own a calf of gold, to be in 2 places at the same time (whether it was in the wilderness and at a wedding I don't know) and to have had a river rise up and hail him.

But do we "believe in him" as a god? No, we remember him as a giant of mathematics. Why the need to focus on Jesus' miraculous ability to come back from the dead in the flesh, instead of to just remember his ethical teachings? I say, for the reason that the Roman Empire wanted to use him as a political tool, plain and simple.

markfiend

Historical Socrates

It even has his photograph.

I'll get my coat.

Alf

Wrong. It is socrates 3 - Jesus 0. No, the gospels doesn't count. They were written years after and are not eye witnesses. They are stories about how someone heard from their aunt's neighbour's second cousin's buddy that there was this Jesus guy somewhere.

Paul never met Jesus and we are not even sure if Paul's Christ is the same as the gospel's christ other than that is what belivers claim.

Again wrong. Our evidence about historical people may be little but of Jesus is even less than little.

Then you do so by putting undue faith in the heresay from the gospels. Luke explicitely uses the phrase "handed down to us" to explain that this is how we have heard it from some anonymous unnamed sources who may in turn have heard it from other anonymous unnamed sources who.... etc etc.

The other gospels do not admit it as explicitely but they are of the same kind. The other of the gospel of Mark for example never figured out jewish customs and most likely never set foot anywhere near a jewish settlement not spoke to an actual jew himself. How many links in the chain between himself and the supposed source of the story he tells is a huge question mark. He also got the geography wrong. Again, proof that he had never been anywhere close to Judea and nearby regions.

The others are testified through independent sources. Yes, you can explain that Plato made up Socrates. However, it is strange that he and the other two would make up the same name and more or less much the same personality unless there really was a real historical Socrates there to be the source of said inspiration. In other words, it is the simplest explanation that explains the facts. Therefore we accept that Socrates is historical.

Unfortunatley we cannot do the same about Jesus.

1. We can accept that some person named Yeshua or some such roamed around palestine region appearantly performing miraclesa and teaching morality and ethics. This is fairly unproblematic and this is what historicans are willing to accept. However, I will assume we do not accept that because there is overwhelming evidence in its favor but because it is unproblematic for one and secondly not a big deal.

2. We can also accept that there was no Jesus and that it was a myth. There are evidence in its favor.

3. We can also accept that the truth is a mix of the first two. I.e. there may have been some historical man as described by 1 and then piled upon this is a myth and legend that this guy did all sorts of things and that the appearant miracles was real actual miracles. Then people identify the mythical person with the historical person and claim it was he who did those things.

4. We can not accept that this guy was born of a virgin, that he walked on water, transformed water into wine, that he fed a whole bunch of people using only 2 fishes and 5 loaves of bread and that he got crucified only to be resurrected some days later and walked around and showed himself alive before ascending up into the sky.

Alf

Pastor's Nightmare

You're right. We do have the 11 disciples eye witness account as recorded in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And, these books say some interesting things.

1.)Matthew states that one angel appears before Mary while John states that two angels appear before Mary. Furthermore, they give different accounts of the conversation, which occurred.
a.There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
The angel said to the women, "Do no be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified." (Matthew 28:2-5)
b.but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
They asked her, "Women, why are you crying?"
"They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." (John 20:11-13)

2.)Two different accounts are given of Judas's death in The Book of Matthew and The Book of Acts.
a.So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5)
b.With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. (Acts 1:18)

3.)In The Book of Matthew, it is stated that Joseph's father is Jacob while The Book of Luke states that Joseph's father is Heli.
a. and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16)
b.Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,... (Luke 3:23)

EarlOfLade

Well, I saw Chriss Angel walk on water in a pool in Las Vegas... Maybe he is the second coming? He sure look like Jebus... :angel:

Iasion

Greetings,

Really?

Please cite some of these "many mythicists" who maintain it was a "deliberate fiction".


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

I have never heard an MJer claim it was a "hoax".

Yet time and time again I see apologists saying :
"the NT was not a hoax",
as if that settles it.

NO-ONE said it was a "hoax".
Please pay attention.


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Again,
no-one said it was a hoax.

Did anyone expose the "hoax" of Hercules?
Did anyone expose the "hoax" of Osiris?
Did anyone expose the "hoax" of Odysseus?

There were not "hoaxes" to expose -
they were stories, myths, religious legends.


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

The number of MSS has NOTHING to do with the truth of the contents.

We have millions of copies of the Book of Mormon from shortly after it's origin - does that make it true?


Socrates MAY have not existed.
Entirely consistent.


Iasion